Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 1235 2011 SLD 1235 2011 YLR 1551
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 162-J Criminal Revision No. 494 and Murder Reference No. 454 of 2005, decision Dated: 12-10-2010. Dates of hearing: 11 & 12-10-2010.
SH. NAJAM UL HASAN, JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Malik Israr Elahi with Miss Bushra Qamar
Respondent(s) by: Shahid Bashir, Deputy Prosecutor-General

MUMRAIZ

VS

THE STATE

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302,302(b)

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 107,155,340(2),342,367(5),544A

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-e-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Incident was a case of single accused and in promptly lodged F.I.R., all the details regarding the occurrence had been mentioned---Both the witnesses, though related to the deceased, but counsel for accused remained unable to point out any personal enmity or grudge of the witnesses against accused---Mere relationship of the witnesses with the deceased, was not enough to discard their testimony, unless they had some personal grudge of their own against accused---Close relationship of the witnesses with the deceased, rather had excluded any possibility of substitution in the case that was otherwise a rare phenomenon in the case of single accused; as it was not possible that the eye-witnesses could leave the actual culprit responsible for two murders of their very close relatives and would falsely implicate accused in the case---Plea of accused that both the deceased had killed each other was just a flimsy and unfounded plea taken on his behalf---Both the deceased were father and son and accused remained totally failed to substantiate his said plea during the trial---Ocular account was consistent, trustworthy and reliable on all material aspects of the occurrence and it was further corroboratedby medical evidence---Minor discrepancies regarding the seat of certain injuries also did not affect the prosecution case at all---Ocular account was further corroborated by very strong motive set up in F.I.R.---Another circumstance against accused was his abscondence of 25 days and he failed to explain the same during the trial---Non-sending of recovered bullet from the dead body of the deceased to the Forensic Science Laboratory for its comparison with the recovered pistol was necessarily a negligence on the part of Investigating Officer, but such negligence could not be made basis for extension of any doubt to accused, if case against him was otherwise proved beyond any shadow of doubt---Finding of conviction and sentence of accused by the Trial Court, in circumstances was quite in accordance with law; and was based upon well recognized principles of appreciation of evidence in a…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492